Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[BayGBM]

yep - those too

they should all mind their own fucking business and Focus on their own Families

True, but it is easier (and more fun) to preach to other people than face your own faults.  Just ask Ted Haggard and his wife. 

[BayGBM]

Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008

California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.

The polling, he said, "shows a deeply divided electorate."

Wednesday's poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute's poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.

In other findings, the poll found:

* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state -- a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.

* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state's budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.

* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.

* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.

Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court's decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.

Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.

Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million -- more than half of their money -- from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.

[Deicide]

Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.
By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008

California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.

The polling, he said, "shows a deeply divided electorate."

Wednesday's poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute's poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.

In other findings, the poll found:

* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state -- a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.

* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state's budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.

* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.

* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.

Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court's decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.

Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.

Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million -- more than half of their money -- from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.

This is about tax benefits, isn't it?

[BayGBM]

Connecticut high court rules same-sex couples can marry
9:22 AM PDT, October 10, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success."

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-samesex11-2008oct11,0,4772793.story

[Dos Equis]

Incredible.  The men in black stike yet again. 

[BayGBM]

Incredible.  The men in black stike yet again. 

And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century. 

[JohnnyVegas]

And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century. 

Bay-you getting maried anytime soon?


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway?

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.

[Dos Equis]

And with the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection) at their back, they will continue to do.  If you do not believe all citizens should be treated equally, I can see why this decision, and so many others, would upset you.  Perhaps you would be happier living in the 19th century. 

I'd be happier living in a country where the people decide, not four or five judges legislating from the bench. 

None of these decisions (Mass, CA, and CT) decided anything based on "the Constitution (and its clause guaranteeing equal protection)."  They decided them on state constitutional grounds.  The U.S. Supreme has not said homosexuality is a protected class.  It's a lifestyle choice and whether the states should afford special protection to that lifestyle choice should be left to the voters.   

[BayGBM]

Bay-you getting maried anytime soon?


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway?

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.

One never knows with these things, but I am confident Prop 8 will fail.  Should I invite getbig to the ceremony?  I wonder who would come? 

[BayGBM]

Bay-you getting maried anytime soon?


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway?

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.

... but you can't fool all the people all the time. 

[MCWAY]

Bay-you getting maried anytime soon?


BTW Bay, Prop 8 in CA is trying to strike down the gay marriage decision.

I think even if 8 wins (it is losing by a good margin) I am sure the CA Supreme Court, based on the opinion this year, will still find that marriage is a "fundamental right" and will find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

My position used to be be marriage is between a man and a woman, but I switched, now I dont give a shit-I mean who really cares about petty shit like this anyway?

Much bigger things to worry about in life-like our fucked up economy.

BTW-No, Im not gay.

Last time I checked, this amendment was actually up 47-42, according a more recent poll done on it. If the CA Supreme Court felt that this amendment was "unconstitutional", it makes no sense that the judges would allow it to be put on the ballot, in the first place.

Then again, that court has done other things that make no sense, such as not suspending the legalization of gay "marriage", until the elections are over. Why give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be voided in a matter of months?

[MCWAY]

... but you can't fool all the people all the time. 

Are certain voters unable to multi-task?

And where exactly is it written that anyone, who speaks about this issue, does so at the expense of other issues?

Many folks, espeically conservatives, want a good economy, healtcare, steady employment....AND marriage to be clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman. Obama and Biden have both stated as such and they are NOT conservatives. Does that mean that they're putting the economy on the back burner?

[BayGBM]

Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SHARON OTTERMAN

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.

With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.

“Today is really a great day for equality in Connecticut,” said Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage called for continued steps for a constitutional ban on the practice. “It’s an outrage, but it’s not unexpected,” said Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. “We thought all along that the court would usurp the democratic process and force same-sex marriage on Connecticut.”

In his majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that the court found that the “segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm,” in light of “the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody.”

The court also found that “the state had failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.”

In 2005, the Connecticut Legislature passed civil union legislation, but the eight gay and lesbian couples who were plaintiffs in the case argued that the civil union law had created an unequal status for gay men and lesbians that did not confer upon them the same rights and protections as marriage.

While the Connecticut civil union law states that parties to a civil union have "all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law” that are granted to spouses in a marriage, it also included, at the insistence of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, a clause that defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

In a statement issued on Friday, Governor Rell said she would uphold the ruling, even though she disagreed with it.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” the governor said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”

The ruling went to the heart of the question of whether civil unions and marriage can be viewed as separate but equal institutions. In the majority opinion, Justice Palmer wrote that they could not be, because the difference between marriage and civil unions was not just that of nomenclature.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not.”

In 2005, Connecticut was the first state to recognize same-sex unions through an act of its legislature, rather than a court order. Still, the judges ruled, that action fell short in giving the state’s gay and lesbian couples the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the state’s Constitution.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court found.

“Ultimately,” the opinion continued, “the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

With the ruling, Connecticut joins Massachusetts and California as the only states that allow same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey have civil unions, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples to receive some of the same benefits granted to those in civil unions.

The decision takes effect on October 28, and the first same-sex marriages will be able to occur sometime in November, the Connecticut attorney general’s office said. Of the eight same-sex couples who were plaintiffs in the Connecticut case, Kerrigan, Elizabeth, et al., v. Connecticut Department of Health, et al., four of the couples had already entered same-sex civil unions, while the others had been holding out for the marriage designation.

The case began in 2004 when the eight couples applied to marry in the town of Madison, and were rejected. Arguments were last heard in the case in May 2007, and the justices took well over a year to reach their decision.

The case turned on whether same-sex couples should be treated as a “suspect class” — groups like minorities and women that have experienced discrimination — which could lead to heightened legal scrutiny of the decision to offer separate institutions.

In oral arguments before a Supreme Court panel, the assistant attorney general said the number of “prominent politicians who are openly gay and lesbian” proves that homosexuals are not “politically powerless,” one of the requirements of a suspect class; that caused one justice to say, “If it were true political power,” they would have already won the right to marry.

The state also argued that the plaintiffs had no case because they were free to marry, just not someone of the same sex, and that there was no gender discrimination because men and women were equally constrained. In July 2006, the lower court judge, Patty Jenkins Pittman of Superior Court in New Haven, backed the state, ruling that Connecticut’s Constitution “requires there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature.”

Concurring with Justice Palmer in Friday’s opinion were justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, and Lubbie Harper, an appellate court justice who sat on the panel for the case. Justices David Borden, who was acting chief justice at the time of the ruling but who is now retired, Christine S. Vertefeuille, and Peter T. Zarella, each filed an opinion in dissent.

Justice Borden said he agreed with the lower court’s ruling that treating sexual orientation as a suspect class “is contrary to a sound and prudent interpretation of constitutional standards regarding equal protection of the laws, because it unduly minimizes the unique and extraordinary political power of gay persons in this state.”

Justice Zarella went further in his dissent, ruling that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage in Connecticut because the state’s marriage laws deal with the regulation of procreation, a factor not triggered in the case of gay marriage. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis as biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

About 1,800 couples have obtained civil unions in Connecticut since 2005, more than a third of them in the first three months they were offered. Some gay-rights advocates say the demand has slowed since, amid complaints that the unions leave people feeling not quite married and not quite single, facing forms that mischaracterize their status and questions at airports challenging their ties to their own children.

In April 2007, the Connecticut General Assembly’s judiciary committee approved same-sex marriage legislation by a vote of 27 to 15, a larger margin than was expected by even the most optimistic advocates. But the legislature never went on to pass a gay marriage law, which Governor Rell had threatened to veto.

[JohnnyVegas]

Last time I checked, this amendment was actually up 47-42, according a more recent poll done on it. If the CA Supreme Court felt that this amendment was "unconstitutional", it makes no sense that the judges would allow it to be put on the ballot, in the first place.

Oh no, the CA Sup Ct cannot hold any initiative off the ballot-that is not their job.

Their job is to interpret the law-and that only happens AFTER a law becomes a law, not before.

A good example is prop 187, from 1991 when the state passed an initiative, by a WIDE margin, that stopped welfare services to illegal immigrants-that was passed and as soon as it passed a con law challenge was filed and the law was struck down.

No, prop 8 would never survive a legal challenge under a "strict scrutiny" level of review which is given to fundamental rights. That is if 8 even passes. IMO anyway. But courts can do whatever they want to and find a millon ways to try to justify it.

[JohnnyVegas]

The ruling went to the heart of the question of whether civil unions and marriage can be viewed as separate but equal institutions. In the majority opinion, Justice Palmer wrote that they could not be, because the difference between marriage and civil unions was not just that of nomenclature.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not.”

If you read the CA decision, this is, almost verbatim, lifted from it.

[BayGBM]

If you read the CA decision, this is, almost verbatim, lifted from it.

If it is good enough for CA it is good enough for CT.  America tried "separate but equal" in the past and it didn't work out so well; one would think the country might have learned a lesson from that. 

[BayGBM]

Conservatives had better have a good long look in the mirror. Their grandparents were the same people who believed blacks shouldn't marry whites. Their great great grandparents believed blacks shouldn't vote. Their great^4 grandparents believed in slavery.

History moves folks. It moves slowly, but it will not stop. Ask yourself. Which side of history do you want to be on?
— typingmonkey, california


I was born and raised in CT and moved away at 18 because of the small town and small minds. This ruling makes me long for home. Thanks for your openmindedness and understanding! Now if only we could do this in Atlanta...
— Holly, Atlanta, GA


Wonderful! The times, they are changing. From a 73 year old grandfather.
— Hans Levi, St. Louis, Mo


Yea! With all the troubles people have right now, some are worried about gay and lesbian couples getting married? Jeez, get a life. Congratulations to those who can now marry legally!
— lrm, St. Paul, MN


Right on.

Anyone who thinks that other people's rights should be up for a vote wouldn't feel the same way if it were their own rights.
— Karen, Washington



I'm sure this decision will be viewed by those in the so-called "Red States" as an example of east coast liberals run amok. I'm the mother of a 17 year old who just told us he's gay (although I knew two years ago - moms just know...) and I'm no "liberal." He is the absolute pride of my life - a top honors student, athlete, volunteer at a homeless shelter, and regular church goer. It is fascinating to watch him reject the outreach from top colleges in the South and Midwest because he believes he wouldn't be welcomed on their campuses for who he is. It's their loss.

I am so proud of my state's Supreme Court, made up of judges who were appointed by people we the people elected. My son deserves equal rights, and he, unlike the generations before him, will get them.
— MM, Rocky Hill, CT

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?s=1&pg=1

[Benny B]

If it is good enough for CA it is good enough for CT.  America tried "separate but equal" in the past and it didn't work out so well; one would think the country might have learned a lesson from that. 

The perverse actions of the homo community has nothing to do with the Black struggle for equal rights in America. 

[Dos Equis]

OCTOBER 22, 2008
Gay Marriage in Peril in California
By JIM CARLTON

A state ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is gaining momentum, with polls showing almost even odds of it passing after trailing by double digits a month ago.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Tellstrom, pastor of the Irvine United Congressional Church in Irvine, Calif., urges Californians to vote "no" on Proposition 8.
In June, the state legalized same-sex marriages. The next month, Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, was put on the ballot for November. Initial polling showed that a majority of Californians were likely to vote against Proposition 8. A Sept. 18 poll by the San Francisco-based Field Poll found the measure losing 55% to 38% among likely voters.

But now the measure is favored 48% to 45% among likely voters questioned in an Oct. 17 poll by Survey USA of Verona, N.J. The poll's margin of error, four percentage points, means the results were a statistical tie.

A group leading the fight against the measure, Equality for All, said this week that one of its internal polls shows Proposition 8 leading by four percentage points. The close results of that poll, too, may suggest a dead heat as the Nov. 4 election approaches.

"The outcome will be close because Californians are evenly divided on gay marriage," said Mark Baldassare, chief executive of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. A new poll by the institute, due out late Wednesday, is expected to show a tight race. The measure needs a simple majority vote to pass.

Proposition 8 was initiated after the state's Supreme Court said in May that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for the legalization of gay marriage in California starting June 17. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The issue has come up in the presidential campaign, with Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, suggesting this week that she would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide. The outcome of California's battle could affect whether states move to recognize gay marriages.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have gained ground by capitalizing on their opponents' missteps. They have been running a television ad for several weeks that shows San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom delivering a boisterous response to a throng of supporters after the state Supreme Court ruling. "The door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not," the Democratic mayor says loudly.

"Gavin Newsom has been a great player on our team," said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California, a group that has been leading the "Yes on 8" campaign.

Pollsters say that fueling the rise in support for Proposition 8 is an advertising blitz heavily bankrolled by the Mormon Church, which suggests, among other things, that if Proposition 8 doesn't pass then schoolchildren will be indoctrinated about gay marriage.

Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say. "Yes" campaigners say the Mormons are just one of many religious groups that support the ban.

Officials in San Francisco -- a national pioneer in recognizing gay marriages -- have come out strongly against the Mormon Church's campaign. "This is a blood feud on their part," said Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco.

 A Mormon Church spokesman said it is acting only as a part of a broad coalition of groups opposed to gay marriage. "The campaign has had the support of over 60,000 individual contributors, the majority of which are not Mormons," Mormon spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement. Mormon leaders, on the church's official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."

Proposition 8 opponents are scrambling to turn back the tide. They have raised about $20 million by enlisting powerful allies such as the state teachers and nurses unions. The "No" campaign also is unleashing its own attack ads. "Unfair, Unnecessary, and Wrong," says one new ad, which calls attention to a wave of newspaper, union and other endorsements against the measure.

Proposition 8 draws its heaviest support in Republican strongholds such as the Central Valley and Inland Empire of Southern California, according to recent polls. Its biggest opposition is coming from Democratic bastions such as San Francisco and Los Angeles along the coast.

But two Democratic constituencies -- African-Americans and Latinos -- are leaning toward the ban. Among likely black voters, 58% supported Proposition 8 compared with 38% who opposed it in the most recent Survey USA poll. Among Latinos, 47% supported the proposition while 41% opposed it; white voters were nearly evenly split. The reason, "Yes" officials say, is that church attendance is strong in many minority communities.

As a result, both sides are lobbying to corral votes in minority neighborhoods. Tuesday, for instance, African-American leaders in Oakland and Los Angeles held news conferences opposing the ban. The same day, other African-American leaders in those cities came out in support of Proposition 8.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html

[BayGBM]

Gay marriages to begin next month in Connecticut
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 29, 5:31 am ET

HARTFORD, Conn. – Officials are gearing up for the day next month when gay and lesbian couples can begin tying the knot in Connecticut.

Attorneys involved in the gay marriage case said Tuesday that couples can begin picking up marriage license applications sometime on or after Nov. 10. A judge at the New Haven Superior Court, where the case began in 2004, still must decide the precise date.

The state Supreme Court's decision allowing same-sex marriages became official Tuesday with its publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. The publication triggered a 10-day period when motions for reconsideration can be filed.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said after that period ends on Nov. 10, the Superior Court judge can act on the high court's ruling.

The judgment may come later that week because Nov. 10 is a Monday, a busy day for the Superior Court, and Tuesday is a state holiday.

The state Department of Public Health is having new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse." The new forms are expected to be shipped out to city and town clerks later this week.

"The moment the judgment is entered, the state of Connecticut is required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And we expect the clerks will be ready," said Bennett H. Klein, senior attorney with the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

The state Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. Connecticut became the third state, behind Massachusetts and California, to legalize gay marriage.

It's unclear how many couples will get married.

According to the public health department, there have been 2,032 civil union licenses issued in Connecticut between Oct. 2005 and July 2008.

"I would bet that the majority of those people would change the civil unions to marriage," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a pro-gay marriage organization. "I think that you have people who've waited to get married and have not had civil unions."

Couples currently in a civil union that wish to become married will need to fill out a marriage license application form at their city or town hall. There is no residency requirement for marriage in Connecticut.

The state's 2005 civil unions law will remain on the books, at least for now. Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same state legal rights and privileges as married couples without the status of being married. It will be up to the General Assembly to decide whether to change the civil unions law, Klein said.

[BayGBM]

From the Los Angeles Times ENDORSEMENTS 2008

No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

[Desolate]

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Ban it, California.

Tolerance is for people who lack any moral conviction. In other words, scum.

[BayGBM]

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure
John Wildermuth,Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writers

(11-05) 12:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court - whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage - asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions."

The suit was filed on behalf of six unmarried same-sex couples and the gay rights group Equality California.

Passage of Prop. 8 leaves more than just the future of same-sex marriage up in the air. Questions have also been raised about whether the marriages of the estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June will be recognized as valid.

Supporters of the ban have said their measure was intended to be applied retroactively. "We're confident voters did go to the polls to vote 'yes' to protect traditional marriage," said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign.

Same-sex marriage bans won easily Tuesday night in Florida and Arizona. It was a rematch in Arizona, which in 2006 became the only state to ever reject a ban on same-sex marriage.

The campaign in California pitted those who argued that a same-sex marriage ban was nothing more than outdated discrimination against gays and lesbians, and conservatives and Christian groups who countered that the state and the courts have no right to unilaterally change a definition of marriage that has existed for centuries.

The flood of dollars that poured into the state from every part of the country made Prop. 8 the most expensive social issue race the nation has ever seen. And behind every one of those checks was someone desperately worried about what the election result could mean to them and their state.

To San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other opponents of Prop. 8, as well as to religious groups that backed the measure, the proposed ban on same-sex marriage was the second-most-important election in the country Tuesday.

The Prop. 8 battle, born in San Francisco, came eight years after more than 61 percent of California voters came out in favor of Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. But supporters had little time to savor the victory.

In 2004, Newsom set off a political and social explosion when he ordered marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in the city. Gay and lesbian couples flocked to the city, showing up in wedding dresses and tuxes for the chance to be legally married. Despite outraged reaction from across the state and nation, Newsom didn't back down until a court ordered the city to stop issuing the same-sex licenses.

In 2005 and 2007, the Legislature passed bills that would have allowed same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them. In 2006, the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to hear several challenges to same-sex marriage and rule on them.

Opponents of same-sex marriage were ready with a challenge that became Prop. 8.

Worried that a governor after Schwarzenegger would sign a same-sex marriage bill or that the court would rule against them, Prop. 22 supporters began putting together another initiative drive to make the same-sex marriage ban part of the California Constitution, beyond the reach of either the Legislature or the courts. They raised the money and gathered more than 1.1 million signatures by this spring.

On May 15, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage. The court voted 4-3 to overturn Prop. 22 and the same-sex marriage ban, ruling that the state Constitution provided a right to marry that extends to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the voters or the Legislature, not the court, to permit same-sex marriage, a view quickly taken up by opponents of the ruling.

"Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California," Prop. 8 supporters said in a TV ad. "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."

It was an argument that continued all the way to election day.

But with same-sex marriage legal in California, opponents of Prop. 8 could run a totally different campaign from the type that had lost virtually every election over the issue across the nation.

Rather than arguing for same-sex marriage, opponents took the moral high ground atop the Supreme Court decision and argued that a vote for Prop. 8 was a vote for discrimination. They got another bit of help when state Attorney General Jerry Brown ordered the Prop. 8 ballot language changed to say that it "eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

Prop. 8 backers charged that politics, not legal rectitude, was behind Brown's decision. They went to court, but lost.

That allowed Prop. 8 opponents, worried that many voters were not enamored with the idea of same-sex marriage, to run a TV campaign that almost never mentioned gays or lesbians or showed them in an ad. Instead, the ads charged that Prop. 8 supporters wanted to take away rights from a single, unnamed group of people, which opponents said was not fair.

[Dos Equis]

Stay tuned.  The four-judge legislature will probably rewrite the state constitution. 

[Hereford]

Of course, the ACLU is now involved...

Majority rules, get over it.